BETTER POLICING FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE
The subject for panel discussion this evening is Better Policing for Good Governance. The idea seems to be that you have to improve your policing if you want to establish good governance. Somebody may dispute this assumption by asserting that you have to have good governance if you want to better your policing. This in fact shows how closely connected the two are and I presume that we will be discussing this subject in the context of a democratic society.
There are two major challenges to governance in this country:
1. Ensuring sustained development of the economy at a brisk pace and
2. providing a sense of security to the public by controlling crime and violence in society.
The two, in fact, are closely linked. A developing economy requires a climate of peace and stability.
This has become particularly important in view of the increasing globalisation and spread of the market forces across the national boundaries. It is important to realise that if development has to take place, crime must be controlled and order must be maintained.
Every civilized society requires to control crime and maintain order if it has to survive; but a democratic society for its survival requires something in addition. It needs for its survival the preservation of citizens rights. Good policing is thus essential not only for economic development, but also for the survival of our democratic system.
It has not yet been realised in this country that this 7 or 10 % growth rate about which we are talking so loudly and the democratic freedoms that we cherish so proudly will not last if we do not establish a system of good policing.
But what is good policing? Good policing in a democratic society is one where the police are professional enough to perform their core functions efficiently and effectively and are sensitive enough to see that they do their duty while respecting human dignity and maintaining citizens rights.
It is the same old perennial problem of maintaining collective security while preserving individual rights. The secret of good policing lies in balancing these requirements and this balancing can be done if we try to reorganise our system on the principles of democratic policing. What are these principles?
One basic principle is that the police should be subject to rule of law and not to the wishes of a person or party in power. In other words, it is very important that the police are controlled and governed to ensure that they work according to what the law and constitution of the country demands. A history of policing in this country shows that the type of control that has been exercised over the police has led to (a) undermining the rule of law and (b) obstructing the growth of a professionally sound system of policing in the country.
One way of dealing with the problem is to make institutional arrangements that provide functional autonomy to the police but simultaneously make them more accountable. The NPC had made many recommendations to ensure this, including the establishment of the State Security Commission (SSC), prescribing a procedure for selection of the head of police, giving him a fixed secure tenure and prescribing rules for transfer and laying down that any transfer done arbitrarily to be treated as null and void. The Padmanabhaiah Committee also placed considerable stress on having a proper tenure and transfer policy for police officers.
The idea of setting up a SSC has not been found acceptable. Can we do something else to achieve the results if SSC is not set up. I would like to introduce a few points to seek your suggestions:
Can we define superintendence in clear terms to say that superintendence is to be exercised in accordance with law and in public interest?
Can we make a distinction between policy formulation and operational directions? I would suggest a distinction to be made between the police as an organization and policing as a set of functions and activities. While the police as an organization should be the responsibility of the government policing as a set of activities should be the responsibility of the chief of police. This would mean that the government’s role is to formulate policies, set standards, monitor performance and provide the money and other resources required for a good police system and not to give operational directions.
Define the roles and responsibilities of different agencies controlling the police. There are three main agencies that control the police- the government, the community and the police themselves. If the law can define the roles of each in clear terms, a part of the problem will be over. .
Establish a system of checks and balances by making consultation amongst different agencies mandatory.
The first principle that has been discussed so far requires the police to be an instrument of rule of law. Being subject to the rule of law also means that the police cannot be a law unto themselves. What the police in this country have not been able to appreciate is that there are limits to their powers- limits imposed by the constitution, law and their own manuals. It is becoming difficult to control police behaviour for many reasons. Some of these are:
1.Criminality in the police has registered considerable increase over a period of time. This was one of the findings of the Pad Committee. The Vohra Committee had also mentioned this. It is not merely misuse of power, but downright criminal acts which have been committed. Nexus between the wrong policeman and dishonest politician results in providing impunity
2.Disciplinary mechanisms have become weak because of the erosion of authority of the departmental hierarchy
3 There has been considerable slackening of the standards of recruitment and appointments due to fast expansion, corruption and favouritism,
Another important principle of democratic policing is that the police must be neutral and non discriminatory. It must protect democratic freedoms of all. How do you ensure this in a highly heterogeneous society?. It has been suggested that the police must be representative of the community it serves. Every effort should be made to get minority people to join the force, but should reservation be made in recruitment on caste and communal basis? The NPC was against this.
One of the most important requirements of democratic policing is to make the police accountable to multiple agencies for improving their performance and behaviour. The PM has suggested the establishment of a Police Performance Evaluation Board and a Police Complaints Authority.
There are two other points that I would like to make. One is about modernisation. Modernisation has been interpreted in terms of equipment- providing the police with all that technology can offer. The modernization grant is now is about Rs 1000 crores. There is no doubt that police must be equipped adequately. But along with the modernization of equipment, modernization of attitudes is very important. Unless the attitudes change, a highly modernized police force need not be a better police force. It may prove to be an oppressive force. How do you modernise the attitudes? If training is the answer, are we doing enough on that front? The BPR&D’s figures show that not even 2% of police budget is being spent on training.
Technology may make police more efficient. However there is no necessary guarantee that the enhancements of police power offered by new technologies will be used to protect, rather than to undermine democracy, particularly when this can happen so silently and effortlessly. We have of course not reached that stage as yet but some signs of this happening are visible in the wiretapping incident.
The other important point for better policing is the need to restructure the police force Restructure it from the point of view of improving the career prospects of lower ranks. The entire structure and philosophy of police organization are loaded highly against the lower ranks. Till the structure is altered and philosophy is changed and the conditions of the lower ranks who constitute 99% of the force are improved, the police can not become a means of good governance.
